The Dilemma Of Vote Counting (house of representatives, voters, Congress, democrat)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I voted for Trump so this is not a "poor loser" post.
I have been mulling this question over and over and can't seem to come up with an answer?
I know the why's of the electoral college and that has become a dilemma for me!
The short version of the EC is we don't want states like California, New York etc. etc. to decide for the rest of the country, Presidential elections .. a concentration of liberal voters in those states.
(I guess you could say the same if the situation was reversed ... if those "concentrations" were made up of conservatives?)
Kind of a Mob Rule situation?
Now, If you understood my ramblings above ... my question is:
(The important part)--->>What difference would it make if liberals and conservatives were spread equally throughout the country?
No concentrations in any states.
Why would we not have everyone cast their vote and have each voted counted equally?
Ex: If Joe Blow receives 100 votes and Bill Smith receives 98 votes out of a total of 198 votes .. Joe wins?
That would not be mob rule but rule by a majority?
Is a majority considered mob rule?
Can't be mob rule because this is how we decide cases in the Supreme Court!
If you can understand this poorly phrased post ... you are certainly intelligent enough to have an answer.
alright, lets say every state was equal parts liberal and conservative, IE california has 5,000,000 voters total, and 2,500,000 are reliably conservative. now lets say new york also has 5,000,000 voters, again equally split. now on election day the liberal candidate wins both states because they got all their voters out, and teh conservtive only got 2,000,000 each out. that makes the vote count so far 5,000,000 liberal to 4,000,000 conservative. no lets say the rest of the country has a total of 10,000,000 voters, but the vote count in this case is 5,000,000 conservative to 4,000,000 liberal, and the conservative won the vote count on all the other states. that means each candidate got 9,000,000 votes. do we have a run off election? count the number of states each candidate won?if we have runoff election, we might get the same result. if we count the states, the conservative wins 48-2.
alright, lets say every state was equal parts liberal and conservative, IE california has 5,000,000 voters total, and 2,500,000 are reliably conservative. now lets say new york also has 5,000,000 voters, again equally split. now on election day the liberal candidate wins both states because they got all their voters out, and teh conservtive only got 2,000,000 each out. that makes the vote count so far 5,000,000 liberal to 4,000,000 conservative. no lets say the rest of the country has a total of 10,000,000 voters, but the vote count in this case is 5,000,000 conservative to 4,000,000 liberal, and the conservative won the vote count on all the other states. that means each candidate got 9,000,000 votes. do we have a run off election? count the number of states each candidate won?if we have runoff election, we might get the same result. if we count the states, the conservative wins 48-2.
what is wrong with counting the number of states each candidate won? and this is the beauty of the electoral college. california and new york, being the most populous states, actually count for more than a number of smaller states. but when you add up the smaller states, suddenly you get a big electoral college number. this makes every state important, not just a couple.
First, I voted for Trump so this is not a "poor loser" post.
I have been mulling this question over and over and can't seem to come up with an answer?
I know the why's of the electoral college and that has become a dilemma for me!
The short version of the EC is we don't want states like California, New York etc. etc. to decide for the rest of the country, Presidential elections .. a concentration of liberal voters in those states.
(I guess you could say the same if the situation was reversed ... if those "concentrations" were made up of conservatives?)
Kind of a Mob Rule situation?
Now, If you understood my ramblings above ... my question is:
(The important part)--->>What difference would it make if liberals and conservatives were spread equally throughout the country?
No concentrations in any states.
Why would we not have everyone cast their vote and have each voted counted equally?
Ex: If Joe Blow receives 100 votes and Bill Smith receives 98 votes out of a total of 198 votes .. Joe wins?
That would not be mob rule but rule by a majority?
Is a majority considered mob rule?
Can't be mob rule because this is how we decide cases in the Supreme Court!
If you can understand this poorly phrased post ... you are certainly intelligent enough to have an answer.
Lets say the nation gets 100 trillion in tax revenue... now because California and New York has the most people to win the election... how do you feel if 100 trillion went to bribe California and New York to vote Democrat?? You don't have roads, you don't police, you don't have anything, in fact, the money you paid to that 100 trillion went to the people in California... now, how do you feel about mob rule or popular vote? Let's say that the people California consumed a lot of carbon for their climate change and instead of forcing them to change, they have to take more money from you and make laws against you because the politicians don't want to upset California... you like that kind of life? Neither did the founders...
First, I voted for Trump so this is not a "poor loser" post.
I have been mulling this question over and over and can't seem to come up with an answer?
I know the why's of the electoral college and that has become a dilemma for me!
The short version of the EC is we don't want states like California, New York etc. etc. to decide for the rest of the country, Presidential elections .. a concentration of liberal voters in those states.
(I guess you could say the same if the situation was reversed ... if those "concentrations" were made up of conservatives?)
Kind of a Mob Rule situation?
Now, If you understood my ramblings above ... my question is:
(The important part)--->>What difference would it make if liberals and conservatives were spread equally throughout the country?
No concentrations in any states.
Why would we not have everyone cast their vote and have each voted counted equally?
Ex: If Joe Blow receives 100 votes and Bill Smith receives 98 votes out of a total of 198 votes .. Joe wins?
That would not be mob rule but rule by a majority?
Is a majority considered mob rule?
Can't be mob rule because this is how we decide cases in the Supreme Court!
If you can understand this poorly phrased post ... you are certainly intelligent enough to have an answer.
It is not just about liberals v conservatives:
The needs and culture of of urban areas are different than those of rural or even suburban areas.
The needs and culture of inner continental states are diifferent than coastal states.
The needs and culture of of sparsely populated states differ than those of highly populated states.
The economic realities of the states vary greatly.
The realities of the culture, infrastructure, and education of agricultural based economy states, industrial based economy states, technology based economy states, and service based states vary greatly.
Differing climates and ecosystems create different perils and assets for different areas.
There is more but basically, we are too vast and diverse of a nation to allow any one part of it to dominate or make the rules for all the others.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
First, I voted for Trump so this is not a "poor loser" post.
I have been mulling this question over and over and can't seem to come up with an answer?
I know the why's of the electoral college and that has become a dilemma for me!
The short version of the EC is we don't want states like California, New York etc. etc. to decide for the rest of the country, Presidential elections .. a concentration of liberal voters in those states.
(I guess you could say the same if the situation was reversed ... if those "concentrations" were made up of conservatives?)
Kind of a Mob Rule situation?
Now, If you understood my ramblings above ... my question is:
(The important part)--->>What difference would it make if liberals and conservatives were spread equally throughout the country?
No concentrations in any states.
Why would we not have everyone cast their vote and have each voted counted equally?
Ex: If Joe Blow receives 100 votes and Bill Smith receives 98 votes out of a total of 198 votes .. Joe wins?
That would not be mob rule but rule by a majority?
Is a majority considered mob rule?
Can't be mob rule because this is how we decide cases in the Supreme Court!
If you can understand this poorly phrased post ... you are certainly intelligent enough to have an answer.
Everyone's vote counts the same. It's one man one vote. We do not directly elect the President so the one man one vote argument is garbage. Governorships and legislatures are direct elections. Even the Senate and Congress are direct elections. The Presidency is not. The states essentially vote for the President "of the United States of America". The President is not there to represent you as an individual, but the Union as a whole.
First, I voted for Trump so this is not a "poor loser" post.
I have been mulling this question over and over and can't seem to come up with an answer?
I know the why's of the electoral college and that has become a dilemma for me!
The short version of the EC is we don't want states like California, New York etc. etc. to decide for the rest of the country, Presidential elections .. a concentration of liberal voters in those states.
(I guess you could say the same if the situation was reversed ... if those "concentrations" were made up of conservatives?)
Kind of a Mob Rule situation?
Now, If you understood my ramblings above ... my question is:
(The important part)--->>What difference would it make if liberals and conservatives were spread equally throughout the country?
No concentrations in any states.
Why would we not have everyone cast their vote and have each voted counted equally?
Ex: If Joe Blow receives 100 votes and Bill Smith receives 98 votes out of a total of 198 votes .. Joe wins?
That would not be mob rule but rule by a majority?
Is a majority considered mob rule?
Can't be mob rule because this is how we decide cases in the Supreme Court!
If you can understand this poorly phrased post ... you are certainly intelligent enough to have an answer.
Just remember and I am sure you understand this: we are not talking about joe Blow, we are talking about equal representation. I do understand how you are thinking but it isn't quite that easy.
Now, If you understood my ramblings above ... my question is:
(The important part)--->>What difference would it make if liberals and conservatives were spread equally throughout the country?
No concentrations in any states.
Why would we not have everyone cast their vote and have each voted counted equally?
We would. If every state had the same population then each state would have the same number of electors. In that situation each vote would be weighted equally.
But given that there are concentrations we want each state to have representation even if it has a small population. That's why its...
- State gets house of representatives according to population.
- State gets 2 senators.
Electoral college combines these two notions as a kind of compromise.
Suppose the UN had fiscal power over nations. Would we want everything in the UN decided by popular vote, where China could essentially rule the whole thing?
Quote:
Ex: If Joe Blow receives 100 votes and Bill Smith receives 98 votes out of a total of 198 votes .. Joe wins?
That would not be mob rule but rule by a majority?
Is a majority considered mob rule? Can't be mob rule because this is how we decide cases in the Supreme Court!
If you can understand this poorly phrased post ... you are certainly intelligent enough to have an answer.
Pure democracy, where every issue is decided by majority, is considered "mob rule" because the majority can vote to violate the minority's rights. This is sometimes likened to two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Whereas in America the "mob will" is restricted by constitutional law.
In theory, the supreme count applies the law. They don't vote for what "seems right the them". They vote for what the law says as it applies to a given case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
